Israel wants peace, has always wanted peace. Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinians to their own state. But the heart of the conflict is the Palestinians’ refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people’s right to their own state in the Land. Thus, a Palestinian state will be at peace with Israel only if the Palestinians also recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people. That means that the Palestinian “refugees” cannot be settled in Israel. Finally, the Palestinian state must be demilitarized, so that it won’t threaten Israel’s security. Israel will adhere to prior agreements, as must the Palestinians.
That, standing on one foot, is Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s June 14 speech at Bar Ilan University, which focused on solving the Palestinian problem. There was much that was lovely, and much that was plain good sense:I strongly support the idea of regional peace that [Obama] is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A.’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.
I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well.
I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to ‘know war no more.’
Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. . . . In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.
A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers. . . . The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.
We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.
The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. . . . But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives.
With this address Netanyahu ended fretful speculation that he had set his face against the “two-state solution.” He said with absolute clarity: peace means two states for two peoples, because Israel does not want to control the Palestinians.
Equally important, he explained that “two states for two peoples” requires that the Palestinians accept Israel as the state of the Jewish people, one of the “two peoples” in question. Netanyahu was panned in many quarters for insisting on this point. But if this doesn’t indicate confusion, it indicates rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
President Barack Obama gave Netanyahu’s performance a lukewarm review, saying: “Overall, I thought that there was positive movement in the Prime Minister’s speech. He acknowledged the need for two states. There were a lot of conditions, and obviously working through the conditions on Israel’s side for security, as well as the Palestinian side for sovereignty and territorial integrity and the capacity to have a functioning, prosperous state, that’s exactly what negotiations are supposed to be about.” Obama went on to insist on “a cessation of settlements,” but he clarified this to mean “settlements that, in past agreements, have been characterized as illegal,” an important step forward, since it suggests defusing the quarrel over “natural growth.” However,Obama should have grabbed the chance to agree that the key to peace is Palestinian acceptance of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
Other, unnamed U.S. officials were described as being “skeptical” about Netanyahu’s other major proviso, that the Palestinian state be demilitarized.
Over at Peace Now, the reaction was a bit sour. In a June 16 conference call, Peace Now leader Galia Golan opined that Netanyahu’s scheme was to placate Obama, while creating right-wing opposition that he can use to avoid reaching an agreement. There were so many conditions in the speech that no Palestinian could accept it, said Golan. (This widely-held idea, that Palestinian unreasonableness can never be challenged and should set the tone of the negotiations, deserves to be examined at greater length.) Golan agreed that “legitimacy is the heart of the issue,” but incredibly claimed that the Palestinians already accept Israel’s right to exist. She was “disappointed” and “pessimistic” as a result of the speech.
The Palestinians, famous for “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” were true to vituperative form. The Palestinian Authority spokesman said: “The speech has destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution. . . .Netanyahu’s failure to recognize the Arab Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state and his attempt to impose a solution to the Palestinian problem outside Israel will not lead to a just and comprehensive peace, as prescribed by the U.N. resolutions.” Fatah official Bilal Al-Hassan said that there can be no Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty unless Israel agrees to the return of the “refugees.” Translation: Palestinian “refugees” are not welcome in the Palestinian state. They are instead to settle in their millions in Israel, making the Jews a minority in their own state. In short, the Palestinian Authority rejects “two states for two peoples” in favor of “two states for one people.”
Hamas’ language was, predictably, even more violent. The acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Dr. Ahmad Bahr, stated: "[Netanyahu's] racist speech rests on denying the [existence of] the Palestinian people and on disregarding their suffering, and [affirms] that a racist entity [exists] on Palestinian soil . . . This speech proves that resistance is the only way for the Palestinian people to attain its legitimate rights—and mainly the right to liberate its country, to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its eternal capital, and to bring a million Palestinians back home, whence they were expelled by Zionist terrorist gangs.”
Susan Abulhawa is a Palestinian diaspora activist living in Pennsylvania. It's hard to say whether her views are typical or not; they are outspokenly hostile to Israel. Here is a specimen of her response to the Netanyahu speech, “Does Israel Really Have a Right to Exist?”: “Does anyone find it interesting that Israel is the only country on the planet going around with this incessant insistence that everyone recognize her right to exist? Given that we Palestinians are the ones who have been dispossessed, occupied, and oppressed, one might expect that we should be the ones making such a demand. . . . We are the rightful heirs to that land and this can be verified legally, historically, culturally, and even genetically. And as such, the only true legitimacy Israel will ever have must come from us abdicating our inheritance, our history, and our culture to Israel. That’s why Israel insists we declare she had a right to take everything we ever had—from home and property, cemeteries, churches and mosques, to culture and history and hope. Israel is a country that was founded by Europeans who came to Palestine, formed terrorist gangs who set about a systematic ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians from their homes on 78% of Historic Palestine in 1948.” Not much good will there.
Elsewhere in the Arab world, Syria asserted that the speech was a clear rejection of peace. Lebanese politician Walid Jumblat read the text and concluded that Israel is about to attack Lebanon. Jordan’s lower house of parliament called the speech “extremist” and “racist.” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that “the call to recognize Israel as a Jewish state makes the situation more complicated and aborts the chances of peace.”
The unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this panorama: Israel accepts the two-state solution, but too many Palestinians and other Arabs do not. Too many Arabs say “peace” and mean “the destruction of Israel,” either violently or, via “the right of return,” demographically.
Demanding Israeli concessions therefore cannot bring peace closer, as the fundamental problem lies on the other side. Obama’s attempt to be relentlessly “even-handed” will fail, since the problem does not lie somewhere in the middle and can’t be solved by splitting the difference. Rather, it must deal with the actual impediment to peace—Arab and Muslim rejectionism. If Obama’s call for “honesty” is to be meaningful, start there.
Comments
Just more of the cock and bull rants from the Palestinian Leadership. It's all fabricated History and we are supposed to swallow this? Lies built upon lies still makes it a lie. I guess if you keep saying something long enough People might believe it. I view it as arrogance on the part of Palestine. Not Israel.
I am amazed that someone would defend Bibi's latest plans that are nothing less than huge steps backwards. But so be it. Writer's like Craig miss that the Internet community can read the Likud's party platform online and quickly find the analog to the Hamas Charter.
Bibi NEVER offered a Palestinian State. He offered the Gaza Disengagement Plan Deluxe.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!